Discourse markers, tag questions and indexicality: towards an experimentally-assisted discourse analysis
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Manchester
Department Name: Arts Languages and Cultures
Abstract
Some discourse markers and tag questions (e.g. like, innit?) are socially enregistered: they have acquired indexical meanings and are associated with particular stances, personal characteristics, personae or social types. This study seeks to gain a better understanding of what language users know and intuit about the use or non-use of four such structures (like, tag questions, you know and I mean), and the indexical meanings they bring to the conversation. For example, the discourse marker like (e.g. "and like she just left") may evoke indexical meanings such as young and cool; however, it may also evoke meanings such as silly and stupid, depending on context. The innovative concept of the indexical field (Eckert 2008) can explain such variation. An indexical field is the collection of all potential indexical meanings of a linguistic feature within a speech community. By constructing an indexical field for a specific discourse structure in a specific form, we will be able to show and explain its variation in indexical meanings.
Such a construction process involves first determining potential indexical meanings of a discourse structure, and then mapping these meanings onto a network that shows the relationship between them. Rather than deriving indexical meanings of discourse structures from (1) transcriptions of discourse alone, a process which can access only a small portion of a structure's indexical field, this study proposes to, additionally, use a method that has recently become available through easily-accessible technology used for acoustic manipulation: (2) conducting perception tests. These two methods will be combined with (3) data collection in focus groups. Results of these methods will be used to construct indexical fields for four discourse structures in conversations among adolescents, with a particular focus on exploring the links of these structures to indexing gender.
The study is, thus, restricted to structures that (a) have acquired indexical meanings, and (b) have links to gendered language use, as is the case for tag questions, like, you know, and I mean. All of these have been discussed in relation to gender. Often such studies find men using more of certain structures (e.g. you know, I mean or tag questions asking for confirmation, such as "she's Polish, isn't she?"), while women use more of other structures (e.g. tag questions facilitating conversations, such as "fine weather, isn't it?").
This study has three major goals:
1. It aims to enhance the text-based analysis of discourse markers and tag questions with data from focus groups and perception tests.
2. It will provide an analysis of four discourse structures in this methodological framework and describe their indexical potential.
3. It will focus on one aspect of their indexical meaning and explore what indexical meanings are activated when these features are indexing gender.
This study goes beyond the scope of most contemporary theories in discourse studies as it brings together research on perception, discourse and indexicality. It responds to theoretical developments within discourse analysis, which have increased the need for perceptual and receptive work (e.g. Gumperz 1982; Fairclough 2007) and have placed understanding indexical meaning at the forefront of investigation (Eckert 2005). This is important because ongoing work elsewhere hypothesises an active connection between how we perceive linguistic features and the features we use (Niedzielski 1999, Campbell-Kibler 2006, Hay et al. 2006). This project will make a data-based contribution to the concept of the indexical field and the experimentally-assisted analysis of discourse, and will move the concept of the indexical field and this innovative method of analysis from theoretical constructs to empirically-based frameworks. By also exploring gender, this study will not only advance the field of discourse studies, but will also shed light on an important social issue.
Such a construction process involves first determining potential indexical meanings of a discourse structure, and then mapping these meanings onto a network that shows the relationship between them. Rather than deriving indexical meanings of discourse structures from (1) transcriptions of discourse alone, a process which can access only a small portion of a structure's indexical field, this study proposes to, additionally, use a method that has recently become available through easily-accessible technology used for acoustic manipulation: (2) conducting perception tests. These two methods will be combined with (3) data collection in focus groups. Results of these methods will be used to construct indexical fields for four discourse structures in conversations among adolescents, with a particular focus on exploring the links of these structures to indexing gender.
The study is, thus, restricted to structures that (a) have acquired indexical meanings, and (b) have links to gendered language use, as is the case for tag questions, like, you know, and I mean. All of these have been discussed in relation to gender. Often such studies find men using more of certain structures (e.g. you know, I mean or tag questions asking for confirmation, such as "she's Polish, isn't she?"), while women use more of other structures (e.g. tag questions facilitating conversations, such as "fine weather, isn't it?").
This study has three major goals:
1. It aims to enhance the text-based analysis of discourse markers and tag questions with data from focus groups and perception tests.
2. It will provide an analysis of four discourse structures in this methodological framework and describe their indexical potential.
3. It will focus on one aspect of their indexical meaning and explore what indexical meanings are activated when these features are indexing gender.
This study goes beyond the scope of most contemporary theories in discourse studies as it brings together research on perception, discourse and indexicality. It responds to theoretical developments within discourse analysis, which have increased the need for perceptual and receptive work (e.g. Gumperz 1982; Fairclough 2007) and have placed understanding indexical meaning at the forefront of investigation (Eckert 2005). This is important because ongoing work elsewhere hypothesises an active connection between how we perceive linguistic features and the features we use (Niedzielski 1999, Campbell-Kibler 2006, Hay et al. 2006). This project will make a data-based contribution to the concept of the indexical field and the experimentally-assisted analysis of discourse, and will move the concept of the indexical field and this innovative method of analysis from theoretical constructs to empirically-based frameworks. By also exploring gender, this study will not only advance the field of discourse studies, but will also shed light on an important social issue.
Planned Impact
The project is designed to make a positive impact beyond its contributions to academia. There are four main groups of people who will benefit from the work proposed. Firstly, the Manchester community in general will benefit from the descriptive aspects proposed by this research. The local population and media show an immense interest in Manchester English; Dr Schleef is contacted by the media and dialect interest groups several times a year. At this point, however, very little empirical data exists on this variety. This information will be disseminated through a website and a press release, which will be circulated via the Media Relations Office at the University of Manchester.
The second group of non-academic beneficiaries are teachers, instructors in intercultural communication, line managers and other professionals who are in regular contact with other people in the workplace. This project can contribute to a better understanding of language and gender. This study is not interested in finding differences in how particular structures are used by males and females. Previous research has identified a set of such structures and has shown that this very much depends on context and individuals. Instead, as a secondary finding, this research will uncover whether there is empirical evidence for a differential interpretation of discourse structures that occasionally may be used to express masculinity or femininity. This has been claimed by many researchers (e.g. Tannen 1990; Holmes 1998); however, statistically-testable evidence for such claims is missing. Yet, this kind of research is used widely in intercultural training, often at the exclusion of more recent deconstructivist, and much more complex and contextually-sensitive, approaches to language and gender. This study will, thus, be in a position to confirm or disconfirm such perceptual claims, and enhance the gender-related training for professionals in socially-sensitive positions. It is beyond the scope of this 10-month project to provide an elaborate information pack; however, the project website and a one-day workshop will present relevant results in a way that will benefit the groups concerned.
The third group of beneficiaries are language learners in Manchester. In particular, immigrant language learners pick up discourse features that may not be taught in the classroom. The website mentioned above will include three parts; one summarising the results for the Manchester community in general, one explaining the gender-related findings, and the third providing material for teachers which can be used in English classes and integration workshops. During data collection for a research project in schools in London and Edinburgh, teachers have pointed out to me the urgent need for such material. Direct instruction about the indexical meaning of discourse features can speed up the language learning process immensely and make a positive contribution to the linguistic integration of immigrants. The material will be developed with the aim of raising language awareness among learners of English, which will enable them to better deal with the discourse features they hear and learn around them. A workshop will initiate the dissemination process of this material.
The fourth group of potential beneficiaries are linguistics students around the world who would gain from research-led teaching in courses whose themes overlap with those of the project. Schleef has successfully piloted the use of online exercises in his classes (http://media.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/humanities/flash/sociolinguistics/index.html), which he has also made publically available, and aims to develop similar resources based on the material developed during the course of this project.
Through these initiatives, the project will be able to make a contribution toward raising awareness of the indexical meaning of discourse structures and their differing interpretation by various groups of people.
The second group of non-academic beneficiaries are teachers, instructors in intercultural communication, line managers and other professionals who are in regular contact with other people in the workplace. This project can contribute to a better understanding of language and gender. This study is not interested in finding differences in how particular structures are used by males and females. Previous research has identified a set of such structures and has shown that this very much depends on context and individuals. Instead, as a secondary finding, this research will uncover whether there is empirical evidence for a differential interpretation of discourse structures that occasionally may be used to express masculinity or femininity. This has been claimed by many researchers (e.g. Tannen 1990; Holmes 1998); however, statistically-testable evidence for such claims is missing. Yet, this kind of research is used widely in intercultural training, often at the exclusion of more recent deconstructivist, and much more complex and contextually-sensitive, approaches to language and gender. This study will, thus, be in a position to confirm or disconfirm such perceptual claims, and enhance the gender-related training for professionals in socially-sensitive positions. It is beyond the scope of this 10-month project to provide an elaborate information pack; however, the project website and a one-day workshop will present relevant results in a way that will benefit the groups concerned.
The third group of beneficiaries are language learners in Manchester. In particular, immigrant language learners pick up discourse features that may not be taught in the classroom. The website mentioned above will include three parts; one summarising the results for the Manchester community in general, one explaining the gender-related findings, and the third providing material for teachers which can be used in English classes and integration workshops. During data collection for a research project in schools in London and Edinburgh, teachers have pointed out to me the urgent need for such material. Direct instruction about the indexical meaning of discourse features can speed up the language learning process immensely and make a positive contribution to the linguistic integration of immigrants. The material will be developed with the aim of raising language awareness among learners of English, which will enable them to better deal with the discourse features they hear and learn around them. A workshop will initiate the dissemination process of this material.
The fourth group of potential beneficiaries are linguistics students around the world who would gain from research-led teaching in courses whose themes overlap with those of the project. Schleef has successfully piloted the use of online exercises in his classes (http://media.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/humanities/flash/sociolinguistics/index.html), which he has also made publically available, and aims to develop similar resources based on the material developed during the course of this project.
Through these initiatives, the project will be able to make a contribution toward raising awareness of the indexical meaning of discourse structures and their differing interpretation by various groups of people.
People |
ORCID iD |
| Erik Schleef (Principal Investigator / Fellow) |
Publications
Davydova, Julia
(2017)
Acquisition of sociolinguistic awareness by German learners of English: A study in perceptions of quotative be like
in Linguistics
SCHLEEF E
(2016)
Sociophonetic variation of like in British dialects: effects of function, context and predictability
in English Language and Linguistics
Schleef, E.
(2019)
The Cambridge handbook of World Englishes
Schleef, E.
(2015)
Doing sociolinguistics: A practical guide to data collection and analysis
Schleef, E.
"Exasperating" English: indexical meanings of discourse markers.
in Under review
Schleef, E.
(2015)
Doing Sociolinguistics: A Practical Guide to Data Collection and Analysis
| Description | This study aimed to uncover the potential indexical meanings of discourse structures, particularly in relation to indexing gender. We investigated these structures in three steps. First, we explored how one of them in particular (like) is used in natural conversation. Then we used these findings to design perceptual experiments. In a third step, this methodology was extended to other structures, such as you know. We gave a total of 4 talks during the grant period, in which we drew on the project data. The above activities have also resulted in forthcoming articles accepted for publication. One of these focuses on production data, the other one on perception. One further perception article is currently under review. We created a project website, which we used to disseminate some of our findings. We also designed a website specifically for learners of English and their teachers, consisting of explanations and exercises on a variety of different accent features. Exercises come with notes for teachers, which are kept in a separate part of the website. Schleef will continue to extend this website during the next few years. Schleef, Erik, Danielle Turton and Fernanda McDougall. 2014. British Accent Features: A Guide for Learners of English. The website had to be taken down in January 2016 when Schleef accepted a professorship at the University of Salzburg. It will be reinstated there with a new URL. The main findings of our analyses fall into two categories: production and perception. In our study of sociophonetic variation of different functions of like, we attempted to determine the factors that may explain this variation. Our results suggest that the function of like correlates primarily with contextual factors, rather than the phonetic factors of vowel quality, /l/ to vowel duration and /k/ realisation. In particular, the preceding and following segments and their bigram predictability emerge as highly significant, in addition to the boundary strength following like. The vowel appears to be the only non-contextual feature that is sensitive to the function of like: quotative be like is more likely to be monophthongised than other functions of like. We argue that the more monophthongal nature of quotative like is due to the syntactic and prosodic context in which it occurs. The discussion of this data has had theoretical implications that have enriched the debate on the representation of phonetic detail in the mind. Since our production study of like showed that quotative like is different in its phonetic detail from the other functions of like, we have separated them and conducted two different studies. We collected data in England, but also among learners of English in Germany, to study the perception of the quotatives be like and say. Data comes from written verbal guise tests in which participants rated stimuli doublets, each containing only one of the quotative variants, on multiple social attribute scales. Broadly, learner evaluations seem to match those of native speakers, in that speakers using be like are considered more fashionable, extroverted, etc. and less educated, pleasant, etc. than speakers using say. Learners have also developed notions about typical users of the two quotatives. We argue that the acquisition of social meanings is mediated by a combination of factors that involve, among others, proficiency and length of time spent abroad but, potentially, also interlanguage processes that result in the creation of new meanings. Moreover, we suggest that the learners re-analyse the native-like meanings attached to linguistic variants in their L2 grammars and create new meanings that draw on resources available in their learner ecology. We call this interlanguage ideological extension. A separate experiment was designed for other functions of like as well as other functions of you know, etc. Here, study participants took an online perception survey, in which they heard audio stimuli. These stimuli were manipulated by cross-splicing to differ only in the occurrence of forms of like, you know, etc. and no discourse marker at all. Participants rated stimuli on multiple social attribute scales, such as intelligence, casualness, etc. This study had two main findings: first, all of these forms are evaluated very similarly with some minor deviations, that is, there appears to be a core meaning that all of these share. Second, we explored the issue of gender; however, gender has so far played only a minor role in how the structures were evaluated as well as in who the participants were that did the evaluating. This would suggest that manipulating one discourse feature alone is not sufficient to make gender relevant. Schleef will continue to analyse the data collected in this project. |
| Exploitation Route | Two strands have emerged for future research: First, it is necessary to test a variety of methods that are used to access social meanings. Various types of perception tests have been used in previous research. However, they have usually been used in isolation without relating them to each other, which makes it difficult to compare and evaluate findings. Second, the links of discourse structures to hesitant and disfluent speech appears to represent a promising avenue of future research as it may help us explain where social meanings of some of these structures come from. The frequent co-occurrence of discourse markers with disfluent speech may be one context from which discourse markers draw meaning. Knowing this will give the theory of indexicality stronger predictive power. |
| Sectors | Other |
| Description | There are four main groups of people who benefit from the project: (1) The general public benefits from the descriptive aspects of this research regarding the social meaning of variable features. Information on the features are being disseminated through the project website and a press release, which will be circulated once the first perception article has come out and will be available for download. (2) English Teachers. English teachers teaching English abroad may not be familiar with the most recent innovations in youth language and what these innovations may mean, i.e. what their social meaning is, so that it can be explained to students when these features are appropriate and when avoiding them may be more beneficial. Results of this project are directly relevant to this issue. We have provided material on non-standard features and notes on exercises for teachers in the form of a website (British Accent Features: A Guide for Learners of English), and Schleef has led 1-hour workshops in schools. Initially, Schleef gave a series of these workshops at different schools in May 2014, and he will continue to do so in the course of his new position at the University of Salzburg once the material is again available online. During the semester, he is committed to run at least one such workshop. These workshops have two goals: (1) to raise awareness of the use and meaning of non-standard features, and to (2) introduce the study material provided on our website British Accent Features: A Guide for Learners of English. Schleef will continue to extend this website during the next few years. (3) The third group of beneficiaries are English learners in the UK and abroad. In particular, immigrant language learners do pick up regional features. Direct instruction about the social meaning of linguistic features can speed up the language learning process immensely and make a positive contribution to the linguistic integration of immigrants. Material from our website British Accent Features: A Guide for Learners of English can be used in English classes. The material was developed with the aim of raising awareness of language variation among learners of English, which will enable them to better deal with the language variation they hear and learn around them. (4) The fourth group of beneficiaries are linguistics students who gain from research methods publications that have indirectly been made possible through this project. Schleef was able to use some of the data and refer to the project publications in two chapters of a book on sociolinguistic methods, specifically the chapters on questionnaire design and perceptions and attitudes. Without the skills and knowledge on questionnaire design, perception research and indexicality acquired in this project, Schleef would have been unable to write these chapters. Schleef, Erik. 2015. Written surveys and questionnaires as a source of data. In: Meyerhoff, Miriam, Erik Schleef and Laurel MacKenzie. Doing Sociolinguistics: A Practical Guide to Data Collection and Analysis. London and New York: Routledge. Schleef, Erik. 2015. Studying perceptions and attitudes. In: Meyerhoff, Miriam, Erik Schleef and Laurel MacKenzie. Doing Sociolinguistics: A Practical Guide to Data Collection and Analysis. London and New York: Routledge. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2014 |
| Sector | Education |
| Impact Types | Societal |
| Description | Conference talk |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | 8/2014. Monophthongisation of like in two British capitals: effects of function, context and frequency. With Danielle Turton. 3rd Conference of the International Society for the Linguistics of English. University of Zurich, Switzerland. Talk led to lively discussion and questions. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Conference talk |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | 4/2014. Monophthongisation of like in two British capitals: effects of function, context and frequency. With Danielle Turton. 2nd International Conference on Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change. Newcastle University, UK. Talk led to lively discussion and questions. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Conference talk |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | 6/2014. Sociophonetic variation of like in British dialects. With Danielle Turton. 20th Sociolinguistics Symposium. University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Talk led to lively discussion and questions. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Invited talk |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | 11/2013. Exploring the social meanings of vernacular features in England. University of Auckland, NZ. Talk led to lively discussion and questions. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| Description | Teacher workshops |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Schools |
| Results and Impact | We have provided material on non-standard features and notes on exercises for teachers in the form of a website (British Accent Features: A Guide for Learners of English), and Schleef has led 1-hour workshops in schools. These workshops are ongoing. Initially, Schleef gave a series of these workshops at different Manchester schools in May 2014. During the semester, he is committed to run at least one such workshop every month. These workshops have two goals: (1) to raise awareness of the use and meaning of non-standard features, and to (2) introduce the study material provided on our website British Accent Features: A Guide for Learners of English. Talks resulted in many questions and discussion. Many teachers are using some of the activities on our website. I occasionally receive emails from students and teachers about the site. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://projects.alc.manchester.ac.uk/britishaccents/ |